1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Never thought I'd find myself with a MFT camera...

Discussion in 'Welcomes and introductions' started by feilb, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. feilb

    feilb Mu-43 Regular

    38
    Dec 4, 2012
    I've had APS-C, I've had (am selling?) full frame. I never thought I would buy an four/thirds camera. I thought the format was stupid when it was first announced. Well. Here I am. And I've got the darnedest grin.

    My first digital camera was an Oly C-8080 with a 2/3" sensor. I loved that thing. It had a flip out screen, an EVF, a great lens, and took nice pictures (for the time :smile:).

    Since that time, I've had Canon APS-C, Canon Full Frame, Nikon APS-C, Pentax APS-C, Nikon Full Frame, Fuji APS-C (I tried both the X-E1 and X-Pro1). Wow, that list is long.

    Well now I'm back with an Oly with a flip out screen and an EVF, a great lens, and it takes great pictures. And I don't hate the format.
     
  2. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    The dilemma with mu43 is that it's the largest of the smaller sensors. That is either the perfect compromise or a complete miss in both directions. I think mu43 has proven to be a good compromise because advancing sensor tech has made the IQ very good and the lenses are smaller.
     
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Disagree. The size gap between m4/3 and APS-C is significantly smaller than the gap between m4/3 and 1" (Nikon 1, Sony RX100).

    But I think we're finally starting to see a gradual decrease in the importance of sensor size and image quality, as the relative differences between the systems in normal conditions shrink.
     
  4. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    Feilb, welcome to the forum!

    I've abandoned the Nikon D300 system in favor of the Olympus EM-5 and have been quite happy with the results.

    The lenses in the :43: line are coming along nicely, and of course there are adapters for using legacy lenses.

    The weight advantage of the :43: kit makes shooting much more enjoyable for me - after a few years of schlepping Nikon DSLR's and heavy lenses it was becoming a trudge.

    This forum has a number of knowledgeable people (and of course, then there's me...:biggrin:) who are well up on :43:; I think you'll find it a valuable resource.

    Regards,

    Jim
     
  5. IcemanYVR

    IcemanYVR Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Nov 16, 2012
    Vancouver, BC
    Allan
    Me too, I thought it was a dumb idea as well, now here I am from FF Nikon.

    The latest crop of ยต43 cameras are excellent and like you, I went with the Olympus as well.

    ... and welcome from Vancouver, Canada
     
  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    :confused:
    I see it as the smallest of the middle-sized sensors ;
    In descending size but all doing a similar job ;
    APS-C Sony & Nikon, APS-C Canon, Canon G1X, 4/3rds.

    There's a big shrink to the next sensor group down.
     
  7. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012
    I think you stated it well.

    I wasn't even aware and didn't care about the m4/3 system when it was first introduced. When I learned of it a few years ago (an acquaintance jumped in, then out) I dismissed the potential even though I had a history of working with smaller, rangefinder cameras.

    Now, with the sensor technology where it is and assumedly only getting better, along with the lens selection, it seems a very viable option, even for professional journalism. Sure, m4/3 might not be as good as the bigger sensor cameras...but at some point good enough is plenty depending on one's needs.
     
  8. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    269
    Jun 29, 2012
    To put sensor sizes in perspective you should look at the Area of the sensor (in mm^2). This is roughly how I would group them myself (largest and smallest among the common formats given in each category):

    Very Large:
    Phase One = 2178
    Leica S = 1350

    Large:
    FF = 860
    APS-H = 519

    Medium:
    APS-C 1.5 = 370
    4/3rds = 225

    Small :
    1" = 123
    2/3" = 58

    Very Small:
    1/1.6" = 48.6
    1/2.7" = 21.7

    Super Small:
    1/3" = 17.3 and smaller

    In other words I would say 4/3rds is the bottom of the medium sized sensors more so than the top of the small. Especially since the next smallest is about 1/2 the area of 4/3rds while 4/3rds is well more than half the area of APS-C.
     
  9. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    So what was wrong with the Fujis?
     
  10. feilb

    feilb Mu-43 Regular

    38
    Dec 4, 2012
    Autofocus. Beautiful, brilliant high-ISO cameras that aren't fast enough for me. I've got a 1-year-old to chase. The viewfinder on the xpro1 is particularly brilliant. Though to me the high refresh beautiful OLED screen on the em5 is much much much better even than the higher resolution screen the xpro and almost as good as the ovf.
     
  11. aragorn1980

    aragorn1980 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    698
    Aug 10, 2012
    Athens Greece
    Takis
    Welcome to the forum!
     
  12. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    This is what has always annoyed me:

    (clipped out parts I wanted and added Canon APS-C)

    To listen to many Canikon crop-sensor DSLR users, you would think that their sensors are just a hair smaller than FF, and then there's a huge jump down to the "tiny" 4/3 sensor. In reality, APS-C is only 38-42% (depending on brand) of FF, while 4/3 is 60-68% of APC-C.

    Here's an interesting note on crop factors (using Canon APS-C):

    APS-H -> FF: 1.29
    APS-C -> APS-H: 1.25
    4/3 -> APS-C: 1.24